State v. Arnold ( 2024 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
No. 125,443
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY CHRISTIAN ARNOLD,
Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; DANIEL CAHILL, judge. Submitted without oral argument.
Opinion filed August 30, 2024. Affirmed.
Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Kayla Roehler, deputy district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Kris W.
Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.
Before PICKERING, P.J., MALONE and WARNER, JJ.
PER CURIAM: Zachary Arnold challenges his conviction for involuntary
manslaughter, which arose after he engaged in a struggle with and ultimately shot and
killed his father. Arnold argues that he should have been granted immunity under K.S.A.
21-5231 because he was acting in self-defense. After carefully reviewing the transcript of
the hearing on Arnold's request for immunity and the parties' arguments, we find that the
district court's decision was based on the correct legal framework and supported by
substantial competent evidence. We thus affirm Arnold's conviction.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2019, Kansas City police officers were dispatched to a house based on
a report that Chris Arnold, the defendant's father, had been shot and killed during an
argument between the two men. (This opinion uses Zachary's and Chris' first names for
purposes of clarity.) Zachary was eventually charged with second-degree murder for
Chris' death.
Early in the case, Zachary filed a motion seeking immunity from prosecution
under K.S.A. 21-5231(a), claiming he had acted in self-defense when he shot Chris—the
motion that is the subject of this appeal. The district court held a hearing on this motion
concurrently with Zachary's preliminary hearing. Zachary testified, as did a detective
from the Kansas City Police Department. The parties also submitted several exhibits,
including an audio recording of the 911 call Zachary made after Chris had been shot,
Chris' autopsy report, a video of Zachary's interview at the police station, and
photographs of the scene, though none of these exhibits are part of the appellate record.
Zachary testified that the argument with his father stemmed from a recent incident
between Zachary, who is a musician, and his music producer. Chris had become friends
with the producer and had introduced him to Zachary, who signed with the producer's
company. Zachary was scheduled to perform in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, in
September 2019. But that night, the producer told Zachary that he would be unable to
perform due to "a series of mishaps." Zachary initially thought the entire performance
had been canceled. But he later saw "live streams from the venue of other artists," as well
as other information that caused him to question the producer's statements.
Zachary discussed the situation with Chris, who volunteered to talk with the
producer. Sometime later, the producer invited Zachary to the recording studio. Zachary
spent an evening at the studio and believed the misunderstanding was resolved.
2
The next day, Zachary updated Chris on what had happened. Chris, who was a
captain with the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Department, had just gotten home from an
off-duty shift as a security guard. Chris was wearing a "soft uniform," which included a
holster with his service firearm.
The conversation began amicably but escalated. Zachary asked Chris what he had
said to the producer, and Chris said that he had told the producer "to make it sound like
[Chris] had nothing to do with this" and "not to say anything to [Zachary]." Zachary was
confused because he knew that Chris planned to talk to the producer; Zachary asked
Chris why he would act like he had nothing to do with it.
At this point, according to Zachary, Chris "put his hand on his firearm and began
stroking it with his right hand"—"mainly with the thumb and his forefingers" over the
holster. Zachary testified that this gesture caused him to fear for his life. He stated that
"multiple times in the past, during other arguments," Chris had pulled out a gun and
pointed it "straight at" Zachary, forcing him to retreat to another room. Zachary explained
that he did not call the police after these previous incidents because he did not believe it
would have done any good; the police would not believe him because he had been in
trouble before, and he had tried to call the police on Chris in the past, but they did not
believe him after Chris told them he was with the sheriff's department. Zachary said that
he had a complex relationship with his father. He described Chris as his confidante, but
the two men also argued a lot; Zachary had been sent to a juvenile facility before because
of physical altercations with Chris. Zachary explained that he believed the only reason
Chris had not shot him in past arguments was because Chris had to retrieve his firearm
from another room first—a protection that was not present during this conversation.
Zachary testified that after the first time Chris put his hand on his gun during their
argument, Zachary had asked him to put the gun away. In response, Chris "[stuck] his
3
arms up on the threshold of the kitchen." Zachary said that over the course of the
argument, it would go "back-and-forth": Chris would drop his hands from the doorframe
and begin "re-stroking" his gun, Zachary would ask Chris to take his hand off his gun,
Chris would put his hands back on the door frame for a bit, and then Chris would drop his
hands again. Chris' body language concerned Zachary because Chris was "acting . . . very
cold and [Zachary] wasn't able to read him very well." Zachary said he was frightened
because he could not tell what Chris' "true intentions" were.
At some point, the argument became physical. Zachary was about 10 feet from
Chris, and Chris had his right hand on his gun in the holster. Zachary saw Chris "move[]
his left hand over to the holster" across his body. Zachary took two steps toward Chris,
and Chris took a few steps back. Zachary said that he interpreted Chris' actions as
"typical . . . for somebody who's trained to draw a firearm. They distance themselves, put
their left hand on their holster, their right hand on their gun, begin to disengage the
[lock], and pull." Zachary then "charged" Chris and covered his hands over the holster.
Zachary's testimony provided conflicting explanations for why he charged at his
father. During his direct examination, he explained that he feared if the gun were to come
out of the holster, Chris would shoot him. On cross-examination, however, Zachary
testified that when he put his hands over Chris', Chris was trying to keep the gun in the
holster.
As the struggle continued, Zachary disengaged the holster safety mechanism. He
explained that he did this because he did not believe that he could keep the gun in the
holster any longer. Zachary said "the gun just came straight out and was pointed straight
at [him]." Zachary, who was 2 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than Chris, said he
tried to turn the gun away from him. Then "all of the sudden," Zachary heard a "pop,"
and Chris dropped to the floor. Zachary called 911 after Chris was shot. Chris died from a
gunshot wound to the face.
4
Zachary testified that he loved and cared about his father, and he did not intend to
shoot Chris or hurt him that night. But Zachary explained that he charged at Chris and
tried taking control of the gun because he feared for his life. Zachary also testified that he
had been diagnosed with several mental illnesses, including auditory hallucinations,
paranoid schizophrenia, Asperger's syndrome, and ADHD. But he did not think these
conditions affected what had occurred the night of Chris' death.
The police detective who was dispatched to the scene and interviewed Zachary
also testified at the hearing. The detective explained that Zachary told him during the
interview that his father's behavior was "kind of odd"; he also noted that Zachary told
him that while he and Chris struggled over the gun, Chris tried to keep his gun in the
holster while Zachary tried to get the gun out of the holster. But he stated that Zachary's
explanation during the interview was confusing.
The detective testified that during the interview, he thought that Zachary "seemed
very articulate at times for having been through what he had been through," though some
of Zachary's behaviors were "odd." For example, Zachary spoke about Chris as though he
were still alive, talking about the things they would do together when Chris retired.
Zachary told the detective that he had been diagnosed with several mental health
disorders, but the detective did not know whether Zachary's behavior that night was
consistent with those diagnoses.
The detective also testified about the nature of Chris' gunshot wound. The autopsy
report stated that the bullet entered near the left side of the bridge of Chris' nose and
lodged just under his right ear—a trajectory traveling left to right and slightly downward.
And Chris' wound had stippling, which are burn marks from the gunpowder that comes
out of the barrel after the gun is shot, which typically result from a shot fired within a
5
two-foot range. The detective noted that he thought "[i]t would be odd for a firearm to be
above the person and fired in a downward angle during a struggle."
The district court ultimately denied Zachary's request for self-defense immunity in
a written ruling. While the court disagreed with the State's assertion that Zachary had
been the initial aggressor in the altercation, it found that the evidence presented provided
probable cause to believe Zachary was not justified in his use of force.
In particular, the court did not find certain aspects of Zachary's explanation to be
credible. The court questioned Zachary's testimony about Chris pointing guns at him
during past arguments because Zachary had not previously told anyone about these
events and his descriptions about when these occurred were vague. The court also found
that the autopsy report's description of the gunshot wound conflicted with Zachary's
testimony. It noted that the trajectory of the bullet could cause a "reasonable person [to]
entertain a belief that the gun was not discharged in the course of the struggle described
by [Zachary]." Thus, "based on the evidence at the hearing, without any deference to the
State, and considering the totality of the circumstances," the district court concluded that
"there exists probable cause that [Zachary] was not justified in his use of deadly force."
The State's case against Zachary proceeded to trial. A jury found that the State had
not shown that Zachary had committed second-degree murder, but the jury did find him
guilty of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. Zachary was sentenced
to 32 months' imprisonment (which he had nearly completed due to his pretrial detention)
and 24 months' postrelease supervision. He appeals, asserting that he was entitled to
immunity from prosecution since he acted in self-defense.
6
DISCUSSION
Under Kansas law, a person is "justified in the use of deadly force" when they
"reasonably believe[] that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent
death or great bodily harm" to that person or to someone else. K.S.A. 21-5222(b). Courts
have indicated that the use of force described in this statute includes both subjective and
objective components. From a subjective standpoint, a defendant's use of deadly force is
justified only if they "sincerely believed it was necessary to kill to prevent imminent
death or great bodily harm to the defendant or a third person." State v. Thomas, 311 Kan.
403, 410, 462 P.3d 149 (2020). And objectively, the statutory justification only applies
when "a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have perceived the use
of deadly force in self-defense as necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm." 311 Kan. at 410-11.
A person who is justified in using force in self-defense under K.S.A. 21-5222 (and
whose conduct meets other statutory requirements) is "immune from criminal prosecution
and civil action" for that act. K.S.A. 21-5231(a). This statutory framework "provides not
only a defense to criminal liability, but also complete immunity from criminal
prosecution" and civil actions. State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643, 659, 479 P.3d 176 (2021).
When a defendant requests immunity under K.S.A. 21-5231, the State must "come
forward with evidence" to show probable cause "that the defendant's use of force was not
statutorily justified." 312 Kan. at 656. In doing so, the State must convince the district
court that the evidence is "sufficient for a person of ordinary prudence and caution to
conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of [the] defendant's guilt despite the claim of
justified use-of-force immunity." 312 Kan. 643, Syl. ¶ 3.
Practically speaking, this means the State must show probable cause that the use of
force was either subjectively or objectively unreasonable. That is, the State must present
7
evidence from which a reasonable person could believe that "the defendant did not
honestly believe the use of force was necessary" or "a reasonable person would not
believe the use of force was necessary under the circumstances." 312 Kan. 643, Syl. ¶ 4.
In determining whether the State met its burden, the district court must "consider the
totality of the circumstances [and] weigh the evidence before it without deference to the
State." State v. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, 1011, 390 P.3d 30 (2017).
The probable-cause burden imposed by K.S.A. 21-5231—like all probable cause
determinations—is "substantially less [onerous] than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt
required to obtain a guilty verdict." Thomas, 311 Kan. at 412. The State "does not need to
prove that the defendant's use of force was not justified; it merely has to establish
probable cause" that it was not. State v. Drake, No. 125,184, 2024 WL 657223, at *6
(Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 319 Kan. ___ (July 9, 2024). As
with any probable-cause analysis, the process for determining whether the State has met
this burden involves two steps. First, the district court must make findings of fact based
on the evidence presented at the hearing and the parties' stipulations. State v. Collins, 311
Kan. 418, 425, 461 P.3d 828 (2020); Thomas, 311 Kan. at 413. Second, the district court
must draw a legal conclusion, based on the totality of the circumstances, as to whether
the State has met its burden to show the case should go forward. Collins, 311 Kan. at 425;
Thomas, 311 Kan. at 413.
Appellate courts review the factual findings underlying a district court's ruling on
self-defense immunity for substantial competent evidence, deferring to those findings if
they are supported by legal and relevant evidence in the record. See Phillips, 312 Kan. at
656. We do not reweigh conflicting evidence or second-guess a district court's credibility
assessments. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, Syl. ¶ 5. Because the district court's ultimate ruling
as to whether immunity is warranted based on those facts is a legal conclusion, we review
that conclusion de novo. Phillips, 312 Kan. at 656.
8
Zachary argues the district court committed a legal error by using an incorrect
evidentiary lens during the immunity hearing. He asserts that despite the district court's
language in its ruling, various aspects of the court's analysis show the court "functionally"
viewed the evidence presented at the immunity hearing in the light most favorable to the
State. Zachary points to three discussions by the district court—concerning the lack of
evidence corroborating Zachary's testimony, Zachary's mental health, and the gunshot
wound—and asserts that these discussions demonstrate that the court viewed the
evidence and resolved all inferences in the State's favor. Zachary is correct that it is the
responsibility of the State, not the defendant, to show probable cause that the defendant
had not used force in self-defense within the meaning of K.S.A. 21-5222(b). See Phillips,
312 Kan. at 656. But after reviewing the district court's ruling and the record, we disagree
with Zachary's interpretation of the district court's statements.
Zachary first challenges the district court's explanation as to why it did not find his
testimony to be credible. In its written ruling, the court noted that only Zachary and Chris
were present during the struggle, so the court's assessment largely rested on whether
Zachary's explanation was believable. The court opined that it might have been more
inclined to believe Zachary's testimony if there were some corroborating evidence, such
as a "video recording of the events and they supported [Zachary's] recitation of the
events." But in the absence of any such evidence, the court observed that there were
several reasons why it doubted Zachary's recounting of the struggle leading to Chris'
death. For example, the court did not find Zachary's testimony about how Chris had
purportedly pointed guns at him in past arguments to be credible, as Zachary had never
told anyone about these incidents before and his descriptions of these incidents were
vague.
Zachary asserts that the district court's statement that it may have believed
Zachary's version of the events if there had been a video corroborating his testimony
showed that the district court erroneously believed that it was Zachary—not the State—
9
who had to come forward with evidence to prove that he acted in self-defense. But this
argument removes the district court's statement from its context. The district court did not
rule that Zachary was required to come forward with evidence; instead, it ruled that
Zachary's explanation of what had occurred was not credible and was not corroborated by
any other evidence presented at the hearing.
Next, Zachary argues that the district court's credibility assessment cannot stand
because it was based in part on speculation regarding Zachary's mental condition the
night of Chris' death. Zachary argues the district court should not have considered his
mental health diagnoses to assess whether his perception that Chris posed a threat to his
safety was reasonable. Zachary asserts that the State provided no evidence that his mental
health influenced the incident. He also asserts that he had testified that he could usually
read his father's social cues and that he did not believe his mental health diagnoses had
any effect on what occurred. So, he concludes, the district court "once again showed
deference to the State" by ignoring conflicting evidence.
This argument is also unpersuasive. There was extensive evidence presented at the
immunity hearing related to Zachary's mental health on the night of Chris' death—largely
through Zachary's own testimony. Zachary described his diagnoses and symptoms and
admitted that those conditions were still affecting him (though he did not believe they had
affected his actions that evening). The detective also testified that Zachary was behaving
strangely during his interview later that night—indeed, Zachary's written argument
following the immunity hearing asserted that his "untreated mental illness at the time of
his police interview likely contributed to his responses to the police." While Zachary is
correct that there was conflicting evidence presented regarding his mental state, the
record does not show that the district court ignored Zachary's explanation; it just found
the other evidence more believable. Appellate courts do not reweigh these evidentiary
assessments. Accord State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021) (noting that
10
a district court is not required to make particularized findings on the record when ruling
on an immunity motion as long as it is apparent that it used the correct legal framework).
In his final argument, Zachary claims that the district court erred when it found
Zachary's explanation of the events was inconsistent with "the nature of [Chris']
wound"—a gunshot wound to the face. Zachary asserts that the district court viewed the
autopsy report in the light most favorable to the State because, other than showing the
gun was pointed at Chris' face when it was fired, the report does not show whether
Zachary fired that gun in self-defense. He argues that the district court could only reach
that conclusion by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and
ignoring any other inferences that could be drawn.
We disagree. There is a difference between viewing evidence in the light most
favorable to the State and weighing the evidence and finding some—but not all—
evidence compelling. When courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State, which a district court is not permitted to do at an immunity hearing, they may
disregard conflicting evidence and focus on the evidence supporting only one outcome.
See State v. Larsen, 317 Kan. 552, 563, 533 P.3d 302 (2023) (recognizing that reasonable
fact-finders might have reached different conclusions under the facts, but a standard
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State focuses only on the evidence
supporting the verdict). But that is not what happened here. Instead, the district court was
faced with conflicting evidence regarding the events leading up to Chris' death, and the
district court found the gunshot wound, which was known and described in the autopsy
report, was inconsistent with Zachary's testimony. In other words, the district court
weighed all the evidence and found some evidence more compelling and credible.
The detective testified at the immunity hearing that he had a hard time reconciling
Chris' bullet wound—to the face and downward within close proximity—with Zachary's
description of his struggle to keep the gun away from his father. While it may not have
11
been physically impossible for an injury to occur in this manner, we agree with the
district court that the nature of the gunshot wound did not fit well with Zachary's
explanation. Its assessment is reasonable and supported by the evidence.
After reviewing the record and the parties' arguments, we find that the district
court analyzed Zachary's request for immunity using the appropriate legal standard. The
court considered all the evidence presented at the hearing and found some evidence and
testimony to be more credible or compelling. And ultimately, the court found based on
the evidence presented that the State had shown probable cause to believe that Zachary
had not been justified in his use of force against Chris. We affirm this ruling.
Before closing, we pause to note that this case demonstrates the important
difference between immunity from prosecution based on self-defense under K.S.A. 21-
5231(a) and the assertion of self-defense as a defense at trial. Here, the district court
found that Zachary was not entitled to immunity from prosecution because there was a
reasonable question as to whether he had acted in self-defense, and we affirm that ruling.
But this ruling does not prevent a defendant from claiming at trial that they acted in self-
defense and thus did not have the requisite mental state to commit the crime charged.
Indeed, the jury at Zachary's trial heard the evidence and found Zachary was not guilty of
second-degree murder or several other offenses, convicting him instead on the final
lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. While Zachary was not entitled to
immunity for his actions, the jury presumably took into account his explanation of what
had occurred and his assertion that he acted in self-defense in reaching that conclusion.
The district court did not err when it denied Zachary Arnold's request for self-
defense immunity. We affirm its judgment.
Affirmed.
12